I began hiking frequently in 2006 and
have
since hiked
in Western Canada, Australia, and spent 2 months backpacking in the
Alps. I spend most weekends either day-hiking or on 2-3 day backpacking
trips, with some longer trips when I can manage them. I also snowshoe
and ski in the winter, but don’t have a lot of experience with winter
in the backcountry yet. Elevation is typically 500-3,000 m
(1,600-10,000 ft), in the Canadian Rockies and the Selkirk, Purcell,
and
Monashee ranges. I try for a light pack, but I don’t consider myself a
lightweight backpacker.

As I mentioned, the upper of the boot is a combination of suede and
nubuck. A stitching pattern extends from the laces down to the inner
and outer edges of the boot, as well as to the back of the heel. The
square laces run through a webbing loop at the front and then four
webbing loops on each side of the tongue before going through a webbing
loop in the centre of the tongue and then through a D-ring on each
side. There are two metal “quick-lace” eyelets on each side of the
boot, at the top. The tongue is lightly padded and gusseted to the
level of the D-ring. The ankle collar is also padded and has a webbing
loop at the back. The boot is 14.5 cm (5.7 in) high at the front of the
ankle collar, and 12.3 cm (4.8 in) high at the back, coming to just
above my ankle. The outsole of the boot has the advertised 5 mm (0.2
in) lug depth. The sole rises under the arch of the foot and curves
towards the toe. The outsole itself rises over the front of the toe
slightly, and there is also a rubber toe-cap at the front of the boots.

The insoles are removable. There is a pattern in the soft fabric
covering the insole. The insole itself is about 4 mm (0.16 in) thick
under the forefoot, and has very noticeable support under the arch of
the foot. The underside of the insole has a lug pattern, with the lugs
being very noticeably deeper under the arch.

The boots appear to be well-made, with no visual defects.

Trying
Them
Out

The Chaco Azula boots are comfortable right out of the box. I have a
fairly wide forefoot and need a high toebox, and my initial impressions
of these boots on my feet is that there is enough room in the toe box
for me. The arch support in the insole is very noticeable upon putting
on the boots. It’s not uncomfortable (I have other Chaco shoes, so I am
familiar with the LUVSEAT footbed), but I can feel it. It falls in the
right place on my feet. The laces are easy to pull snug and tie, and
are long enough to tie into a double-knot, but not so long that they
drag.

I went for a short walk, and the boots were comfortable with
no immediate uncomfortable spots or slipping in the heels. Hopefully
that stays the case on rougher terrain and longer hikes.

Summary

The Chaco Azula Waterproof Mid boots are waterproof mid-height hiking
boots. They seem comfortable so far and look well-made. I am looking
forward to testing out how well they function on the trail over the
next few
months.

I have spent a fair bit of time in the Chaco Azula boots over the past
two months. I have done three overnight hikes in them; one on a Search
& Rescue (SAR) response, one on SAR training, and one just for
fun. All of the overnight trips were in pleasantly dry weather, with
daytime temperatures up to 25 C (77 F) and overnight lows down to just
above freezing. The overnight trips ranged in distance from about 2 km
(1.2 mi) up to 25 km (15.5 mi). I also used the Azulas on ten day
hikes, ranging in length from 5 km (3.1 mi) up to 20 km (12.4 mi). On
one of those days I encountered some very heavy rain in the afternoon.
Surfaces have ranged from grass and dirt trails, to rocky trails, to
dusty and rocky terrain off-trail. I always wear the boots with
midweight merino wool socks.

Observations

The Azula boots have, overall, been quite comfortable so far. They are
light, soft, and the soles are flexible, so they feel light on my feet
and easy to walk in. They were comfortable enough that I didn’t
hesitate to spend the night on a SAR response “sleeping” (there wasn’t
much sleep involved, but I tried) in them. The insoles provide
comfortable support for me,
and although my feet were tired at the end of the longer
backpacking and day hiking days, I wasn’t in any great deal of pain on
the bottoms of them. However, on the overnight trip for fun, which
was the longest, I found that after about 8 km (5 mi) I was starting to
develop a blister on the bottom of the littlest toe on one foot, on the
corner of the toe that bumps against the fourth toe. By the time we
stopped for the night I had a matching blister on the other foot, and
by the end of the next day they had been joined by blisters on the
fourth toes (where they touched). I also had blisters on one foot on my
first metatarsal and on the inside edge of my heel. The blisters on my
toes point me towards thinking that the boots are just a bit too narrow
for me in the toebox, as I could feel that my toes were overlapping as
I stepped; I was actually stepping on top of my fifth toe.

I have mixed feelings about the soft, flexible sole. I feel very
connected to the ground when I walk in them, as I can feel the terrain
under the boots. However, after a long day on rocky terrain, feeling
every rock under the sole starts to lose its appeal. I do like the
boots for hunting, as it seems easier to creep around in the bush with
the soft sole. I also have found it easier to tip-toe in the flexible
boot than in some hard-soled boots. On one occasion, I was standing on
a small log, bouncing on it (trying to get it to break), when I
experienced a pain in my left foot. I hopped backwards off the log,
though to my surprise my left foot didn’t come off. I was even more
surprised to realize that the pain and the fact that I was stuck was
because the stub of a small branch had poked through the sole of the
boot and was stuck in the sole. Upon examination of the boot later, it
appeared that the stub hadn’t merely become stuck in the tread, but had
actually punctured the sole. I don’t know if it went all the way
through. The traction is pretty good on all the types of terrain I’ve
encountered. I’ve only had slips on dust-covered smooth rocks and in
extremely slimy mud.

The boots seem to be quite waterproof. Standing in shallow (i.e. below
the top of the boots) water, either flowing or standing, hasn’t given
me a rush of cold as if the boots were leaking. However, there have
been a couple of days when after some more hiking my socks feel wetter
than I think they should be from sweat. This is something that I plan
to investigate further during the next two months. The suede seems to
wet out on the surface quite quickly. I have flooded them
from the top a couple of times, and they take about two days to fully
dry, with the insoles out. On the bright side, the boots are still
comfortable even when they’re squishing water at every step.

As far as durability goes, the boots are doing ok. Other than the
stick-in-the-sole that I already mentioned, there haven’t been any
major incidents. There are some areas of wear on the suede, and a
couple of loose threads appearing on the toes.

I have noticed that my gaiters don’t fit with these boots. My gaiters
are sized for my old hiking boots, which were considerably bulkier, and
are too loose around the bottom with the Azulas. That’s not the fault
of the boots, but it is unfortunate.

Summary

The Chaco Azula Boots are lightweight and comfortable, though I think
they might be a bit narrow in the toebox for long hikes for me. They
are showing some signs of wear but nothing major. I am looking forward
to spending some more time in cooler weather in them, and to further
testing out the waterproofing.

I have enjoyed using the Chaco Azula boots for the last two months of
this test. I used the boots on a three-day hike in Montana, as well as
eight day hikes. The backpacking trip was in warm, clear weather,
though there were some small patches of snow on the ground from storms
a few days earlier. The terrain was mixed, with the trail crossing
rocky slopes as well as going through forest and old burns, and in
places the trail was hard to follow through the brush and deadfall.
Elevations were up to 2300 m (7550 ft), the total distance over three
days was 35 km (21.7 mi), and the longest day was 19 km (11.8 mi). On
the day hikes, I encountered mostly dry conditions and most hikes were
shorter, less than 10 km (6.2 mi), with one hike that was about 25 km
(15.5 mi) long. Snow finally came late in the test and I took the boots
out on a short hike in the snow.

Relaxing at lunch in Jewel Basin

Observations

I have continued to find the Azulas quite comfortable. On long days, my
feet are tired by the end, especially with a pack, but on most day
hikes they are sufficient. On the three-day hike, I did get blisters on
my littlest toes on the second day, but they weren’t quite as bad as on
the overnight hike that I reported on in the Field Report. I think that
these boots aren’t ideal for me for trips with a heavier pack, though
they seem to be adequate for day hikes.

Regarding waterproofing, I did some tests in my kitchen sink and put
the boots in water up to the bottom of the laces. I left them there for
about ten minutes, and then checked them for wetness inside. The right
boot felt dry, but the left boot felt rather soggy around the area of
the arch. Since that was where I got the branch stuck in the sole, I
have to assume that the stick punctured all the way through the rubber.
That’s disappointing, both because the boot is no longer waterproof,
and because it doesn’t seem like something that should happen to a
hiking boot sole.

The boots are showing some additional wear on the suede from the past
two months of wearing them, including some heavy bushwhacking. There
are more rough patches, particularly on the medial side of the boots.

Summary

The Chaco Azula Mid boots have been great for day hiking and have done
well for backpacking as well. I think they are slightly too narrow for
me in the toebox, but I don’t notice unless I’m carrying a big pack.

Thumbs Up:
Lightweight
Comfortable
Waterproof (except for the poke through the sole)

Product tested and reviewed in each Formal Test Report has been provided free of charge by the manufacturer to BackpackGearTest.org. Upon completion of the Test Series the writer is permitted to keep the product. Owner Reviews are based on product owned by the reviewer personally unless otherwise noted.